 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
> assumptions that are not commonly shared.
Like the word "fair". People only talk about whether something is "fair"
when they're on the losing side of an arbitrary decision.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Man's nature can change with proper education. The trajectory of a
> meteorite can't.
It can if you educate Men to go out and change it. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The meteor cannot be held morally responsible
So who is held morally responsible for the meteor?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as
>> possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of
>> kinds of life, here.
>
> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life,
> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If
> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
>
The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not
object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form it
is of course nonsense.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-5-2009 22:45, andrel wrote:
> On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as
>>> possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of
>>> kinds of life, here.
>>
>> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life,
>> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If
>> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
>>
> The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not
> object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form it
> is of course nonsense.
modulo clerical errors
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as
>>> possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of
>>> kinds of life, here.
>>
>> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life,
>> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If
>> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
>>
> The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not
> object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form it
> is of course nonsense.
That's not what I was trying to say.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the
>> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a
>> different standard than other forms of life. If man is merely a product
>> of nature, this is illogical.
>
> Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's OK. The "natural is
> good/OK" argument is a non-argument. It has no logic behind it.
>
> Warp's point is that man (and occasionally, women) has shown he can act
> contrary to nature and come out more or less unscathed.
Prove that the behaviors you condemn are "contrary to nature."
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>> Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the
>> effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a
>> different standard than other forms of life. If man is merely a product
>> of nature, this is illogical.
>
> Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient species
> who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.
Why should that be the criterion for a differing standard of behavior?
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-5-2009 0:29, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
>>> Chambers wrote:
>>>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much
>>>> as possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but
>>>> of kinds of life, here.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life,
>>> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If
>>> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
>>>
>> The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not
>> object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form
>> it is of course nonsense.
>
> That's not what I was trying to say.
>
Ok, then I didn't understand what you were trying to say.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/8/2009 4:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Man can be held to a different standard because we are a sentient species
>> who understands the consequences of irresponsive behavior.
>
> Why should that be the criterion for a differing standard of behavior?
Because it allows us to.
You cannot hold a cat morally responsible for killing a family of mice
because the cat is incapable of understanding morals.
You can hold a person responsible for killing a family of people because
the person is capable of understanding morals.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
